Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ed boy]

Keep in mind that companies cannot all be considered seperate from the military. I, for one, would want BAE systems to be able to censor information to the same extent as the military.

[scriver]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Yikes. What a nose bleed. He really should get that checked out.

[SalmonGod]

Personally, I believe that if something needs to be kept secret, it's because it shouldn't exist or be happening in the first place.  This is my extreme idealism at work, and I admit it's an idea that isn't immediately compatible with the world as it is.  Regardless, the reason military operations need to be secret, is because they're about fucking killing people.  Whether it's hiding corruption or strategical information, the reason it's relevant is because it's about doing harm and there lies the conflict.  It wouldn't be so damn important if it wasn't, at its core, evil, even if necessary evil, which is an extremely subjective and questionable concept anyway.  The only reason anybody cares about the diplomatic cables is because they reveal the games that people are playing with our lives.  Nobody gives a shit if Diplomat A insults Diplomat B behind their back, but they do if they're doing so because Diplomat B is somehow endangering people.  This is information that people want to know out of personal concern.  If it wasn't, people wouldn't care, and nobody would care if it was kept secret or not, including the people keeping it secret.

I believe in personal privacy.  For instance, I really do not give a shit that Clinton cheated on his wife.  He may have been the president, but that was his personal life.  The stuff we're talking about, though, is public affair.  In professional life and public issues, secrets are problems that exist, and the people responsible don't want the people concerned to be aware of these problems.  In the context of this discussion, I am completely against keeping such secrets.

[MrWiggles]

You can't have privacy without the ability to keep thing secret though.

[Phmcw]

Censorship could happen for several reason : defamation, harmful spreading of rumor in time of war, volontary/unvolontary realease of information capable of endengering current strategy in time of war, disruption of criminal activities...

The point is, the current leak is none of these things. They release carefully selected bit of classified information that usually serve a purpose : uncovering crimes, giving a new light on the current police operation in Irak and Afganistan, or unveiling the truth on America's harmful foreign policy. Or Europe's, for that matter (I'm thinking of the leak of the ACTA).
So yes, it's journalism at his best, giving you important information that help you decide how to vote and keep democracy alive.

Three cheers for wikileaks.

Edit : oh yes, I forgot : private corporation only have the right to do their job equally for any customers.
No, they can't choose them based on their political opinion and must give equal service to all of them (in he same conditions, I don't say that they can't give some customer preferential arrangement within the limits defined by the law) unless a justice decision say otherwise.

[zilpin]

Edit : oh yes, I forgot : private corporation only have the right to do their job equally for any customers.
No, they can't choose them based on their political opinion and must give equal service to all of them (in he same conditions, I don't say that they can't give some customer preferential arrangement within the limits defined by the law) unless a justice decision say otherwise.

Ergo, you would mandate Amazon must publish KKK propaganda pamphlets?  Can't exclude based on their political opinion?

Oh, no, I'm sorry, you meant equally for any customers that you like.  Mea culpa.

[malimbar04]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What is it!? I'll never figure it out.
<insert 100 evil grins>

[Edit/addition]

Personally, I believe that if something needs to be kept secret, it's because it shouldn't exist or be happening in the first place.  This is my extreme idealism at work, and I admit it's an idea that isn't immediately compatible with the world as it is.  Regardless, the reason military operations need to be secret, is because they're about fucking killing people.  Whether it's hiding corruption or strategical information, the reason it's relevant is because it's about doing harm and there lies the conflict.  It wouldn't be so damn important if it wasn't, at its core, evil, even if necessary evil, which is an extremely subjective and questionable concept anyway.  The only reason anybody cares about the diplomatic cables is because they reveal the games that people are playing with our lives.  Nobody gives a shit if Diplomat A insults Diplomat B behind their back, but they do if they're doing so because Diplomat B is somehow endangering people.  This is information that people want to know out of personal concern.  If it wasn't, people wouldn't care, and nobody would care if it was kept secret or not, including the people keeping it secret.

I believe in personal privacy.  For instance, I really do not give a shit that Clinton cheated on his wife.  He may have been the president, but that was his personal life.  The stuff we're talking about, though, is public affair.  In professional life and public issues, secrets are problems that exist, and the people responsible don't want the people concerned to be aware of these problems.  In the context of this discussion, I am completely against keeping such secrets.

Yes, this is technically true. The problem I see is that secrecy is power. Think of a shooter game, the stealthy sniper almost always is the annoyingly hard to kill guy. Or in dwarf fortress, how the hell did that goblin steal away my children? The problem with power is that the person with more always has the advantage. It can also not be taken away, as then the person who doesn't take them away has the advantage once again. We're not going to get rid of all of our nukes unless we can be damn sure our opponents are as well. Dwarf fortress doesn't have this problem largely because we can't often sneak up AI that know where we are. I take that back, you can tunnel underneath them, and while they're clueless they suddenly fall down 10 z levels, and we pick up their armor. Secrets win again.

Ideally, though, secrets would be subject to review. The most annoying thing about military records is that they can be redacted forever, and you'll never figure out what horrible things they did. Thus we're specifically allowing them to have power over us, without allowing ourselves to have the same power to counterbalance.

[Phmcw]

Edit : oh yes, I forgot : private corporation only have the right to do their job equally for any customers.
No, they can't choose them based on their political opinion and must give equal service to all of them (in he same conditions, I don't say that they can't give some customer preferential arrangement within the limits defined by the law) unless a justice decision say otherwise.

Ergo, you would mandate Amazon must publish KKK propaganda pamphlets?  Can't exclude based on their political opinion?

Oh, no, I'm sorry, you meant equally for any customers that you like.  Mea culpa.

They must sell it if it's not illegal.
Whether KKK pamphlet should be illegal or not is another can of worm, but it's certainly not Amazon who should decide.
Also nice straw-man.

[Earthquake Damage]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What is it!? I'll never figure it out.
<insert 100 evil grins>

When do I get to see the goddamn sailboat?!

They must sell it if it's not illegal.
Whether KKK pamphlet should be illegal or not is another can of worm, but it's certainly not Amazon who should decide.

So if Amazon is to sell one book, they must sell every book they can get the rights to sell?  That's ridiculous.

Perhaps you meant they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against customers, so they can't refuse to sell to a KKK member for ideological reasons.

[Dasleah]

Perhaps you meant they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against customers, so they can't refuse to sell to a KKK member for ideological reasons.

thankfully they all pay with the KKK Visa making telling them apart easy!

[Sir Pseudonymous]

Oh hey, relevant.  http://theselfpublishingrevolution.blogspot.com/2010/12/amazon-in-book-banning-business.html

I dont find this relevant. This isn't censoring as much as private publisher choosing which materiel they're willing to be associated with. Amazon isn't stopping them from perusing other means of e publication, or submitting the works to anthologies, or magizines which carter to the genre.

The thing about that is the apparently capricious selecting of material to ban, and the removal of books people had purchased on doing so. We already knew they could do that, but the fact that they persist in doing so despite universal condemnation of the practice is quite troubling.

[Renault]

Eh, I think we should save our indignation for a more worthy cause. I don't see Amazon's actions as particularly troubling. I don't even think they're receiving "universal condemnation," or that the move is even capricious. I can quite understand why they'd want to distance themselves from it.
editedit: The bit about it being something people already paid for, I can see that being something of a property-rights claim, but I'm assuming Amazon actually license you those books rather than sell you them, which would justify their actions legally.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

You don't see the least bit wrong with their persistence in removing any purchased books from their customers' devices and accounts (and in this case apparently refusing to refund them for it, and deriding them for buying it in the first place) that they have decided to remove from their store? Remember when they did that with 1984 of all things?

[Renault]

It's not that I don't see anything wrong with it, no. I quite dislike it. But I'm fairly sure they possess the full legal right to do so. What I don't follow is how this counts as censorship, per se. Amazon are not the government and they are not the sole repository of books (or e-books). While the kindle-pulling thing seems annoying, I don't quite see it as much more than that--an annoyance. I mean, the skeevy convenience store down the street from me sells those paperback "erotic" novels for $5.99, its not like Amazon is wiping them from existence or anything.

[nordak]

Careless talk does kill, I think that some of the leaks are fairly demoralizing for troops... I would support a DDoS against all media that contains classified information, as well as against paypal/mastercard/visa.  I don't think that the media should have published the leaks, and I don't think that paypal/and others should be able to cut off wikileaks as they did.

Wouldn't it be funny if the army used anonymous's LOIC to attack the media?
I'd laugh... Hell I'd participate and laugh as the news of our attack was unable to be published....

Then I would lose my security clearance for doing any such thing... as the DoD wouldn't dare do anything like this officially...